Two cognitive science books by Steven Pinker and Henry Plotkin present a rationalist view of the mind as a computational, modular system shaped by evolution, departing from traditional empiricism. While the author acknowledges this New Rationalism as superior to empiricism, he argues their version is flawed and their optimism about progress is unwarranted.
Steven Pinker declines Scott Alexander's invitation to a formal debate on AI existential risk, arguing that such spectacles are epistemically inferior to rigorous discourse. Pinker reaffirms his respect for Alexander while defending his critique of doomsday AI scenarios as logically flawed, emphasizing that criticizing ideas should not be confused with attacking persons.
Steven Pinker declines Scott Alexander's debate challenge, arguing that formal debates are poor epistemic tools that prioritize spectacle over truth-seeking. Pinker defends his published critiques of AI-existential-risk scenarios as intellectually grounded arguments about ideas rather than personal attacks on researchers.
An article discussing how science fiction narratives about A.I. risk, dating back to Samuel Butler's 1872 'Erewhon,' help clarify contemporary debates about superintelligence and A.I. safety. The author argues that while fictional scenarios don't predict reality, examining these narratives reveals the actual points of disagreement between A.I. safety advocates and skeptics like Steven Pinker.